Forum menu
I've been mulling this over a bit since the Nigella thing 'broke'. It seems that the public reaction to her admitted drug use (and that of many 'celebs' who have been caught at it) is one of 'oh it's only a couple of lines of charlie a lot of people do it, many people who hold down good jobs do it at the weekend'. In Nigella's case the 'her husband is obviously a bastard' has also added to the sympathy that a lot of people feel for her.
Victoria Coren also wrote a piece about how Nigella's wickedly naughty ex persuaded her to rub cocaine on her gums, as though it was just a by-product of being in a sort of edgy friendship group.
Now, let us consider what the act of using cocaine actually does.
It puts money in the hands of organised criminals, who are probably involved in many other crimes connected with, or in addition to drug dealing.
It exploits people who are blackmailed into being couriers, risking their lives in the process. I don't know if 'celebs' get their drugs from 'reputable' (ha) dealers, so avoid having to feel guilty about this.
It keeps some of the poorest nations on earth in a state of near civil war. Countries where kids might be mown down in the street just because they happen to be in the crossfire. In the wrong place at the wrong time.
I can't help but feel that there would have been more outcry if Nigella had used unsustainable fish on her program or advertised clothes made in a sweatshop. Obviously both of these would be 'bad', but compared to what dishing out fifty quid on cocaine actually does, perhaps we are busy looking in the wrong direction. We love to blame 'companies' and 'capitalism' for exploitation, but regard putting money in the hands of rapacious criminals as something a bit 'naughty'. Something that gets a wink and a nod.
One last thought on the drugs mule issue. Do people who use cocaine ever consider that they are sniffing up something that is likely to have passed through another person's gut and shat out the other end?
On that note, over to you.
dannyh - MemberNow, let us consider what the act of using cocaine actually does.
It puts money in the hands of organised criminals, who are probably involved in many other crimes connected with, or in addition to drug dealing.
It exploits people who are blackmailed into being couriers, risking their lives in the process. I don't know if 'celebs' get their drugs from 'reputable' (ha) dealers, so avoid having to feel guilty about this.
It keeps some of the poorest nations on earth in a state of near civil war. Countries where kids might be mown down in the street just because they happen to be in the crossfire. In the wrong place at the wrong time.
These are all things caused by The War Against Drugs, not by using the drug.
Yeah but Cameron likes her so its fine.
capitalism
How is the situation as you outline it not part of capitalism...
Is the issue I could not give a shit?
@ bokonon
That's my point. It is the most unfettered type of capitalism. No laws to obey etc.
@ rureadyboots
Well, thanks for that. Why did you post a comment if you don't give a shit?
Legalise it all, tax and regulate it all, get rid of the dealers, stop the war on drugs, everyone has a party till the drugs run out, then we die.
Piece of piss.
Next.
On a serious note, the black market economies are in the billions of pounds, untaxed, unregulated and with no comeback. Users feel like they cant go anywhere if they get shit stuff or get ill due to social stigma. Unregulated markets means you could literally be ingesting anything. Dealers are getting rich off other peoples misery, that misery could be funding our schools and hospitals.
Is the issue I could not give a shit?
+1
Let's not lose sight of the real issue - her PAs who are on trial for fraud.
Yup- Drugs are bad. Well not so much drugs but the process of manufacturing and distributing drugs is bad. Prohibition simply doesn't work and so the best bet is to control both the manufacture and distribution at state level and make coke, heroin, weed et al controlled as opposed to prohibited substances.
It's dead easy but also political suicide for any party that suggests it. It's being done on a limited basis and is completely proven to work so why not here?
What's 'cool' about not giving a shit about the victims of the drugs trade by the way? And by victims I mean the people who are caught up in it by accident, not those that feed it.
Posh bird, victim of domestic violence by evil rich bastard, good cook, colossal knockers
The fact that she likes a bit of naughty chalk is likely to be overlooked by the public. Asking them to then identify the moral complexities of the drugs supply chain is totally futile.
What dabble said
Global drugs trade estimated to be around £330 billion, legalise it.
These are all things caused by The War Against Drugs, not by using the drug.
By the war against drugs or the war between various interests in the production and distribution to supply drugs despite prohibition. Its nothing other than sheer greed that drives those producers to carry on producing and supplying, and nothing other than blinkered self interest in its consumption. It seems curious to blame legislation for the casualties of those actions on the legislators than on the makers and buyers.
I was looking at a list of current armed conflicts around the world - there are currently more than 40 ongoing wars. The drug war in mexico is second only the the civil war in Syria in terms of annual fatalities and more than twice as bloody as Afghanistan in third place. Curious that Mexico can remain a tourist destination when theres more death going on there than Afghanistan, Iraq and Northwest ****stan put together.
Can we ban topics on a TV cook?
Yossarian.
Thanks for that. I wish I could be so succinct. It was the point I was trying to make. The fact that the 'story' is presented in such terms, and the public will largely overlook the larger picture is what I find disappointing.
yeah david Cameron has said hes rooting for her so its all gravy
Edit- too slow
Beware the sanctimonious of Middle England....
By the war against drugs or the war between various interests in the production and distribution to supply drugs despite prohibition. Its nothing other than sheer greed that drives those producers to carry on producing and supplying, and nothing other than blinkered self interest in its consumption. It seems curious to blame legislation for the casualties of those actions on the legislators than on the makers and buyers.
If it was legalised and regulated they would have to become legal too or be pushed out of the market, lots of new people would get into it legally cos, lets face it, its a big money spinner. The tobacco companies don't go round gunning each other down because everyone's looking at them and it'd be bad for business (simplified somewhat).
No War on Drugs, no Drug Wars (possibly warring in the courtroom).
I remember the Cheif Constable of Grampian a good few years back mentioning in the press that he was constantly being urged to clamp down on druggies, as long as it was the heroin users of Torry and not the Cocaine users of Westhill.
lots of missing the point going on ^^.
at present, drugs are illegal, profits go into the hands of organised crime, now. saying that's because of the war on drugs is sidestepping the issue. these days, even weed is more than likely to have been handled by organised crime, the same people who are cashing in on human trafficking and prostitution. granted, if it was legalised/decriminalised, this wouldn't happen. cheers.
Why should the end user or reader give a toss about the rights and wrongs of using coke when governments clearly don't think its that important? They can divert trillions into fighting a largely phoney war on terror but not commit the same to a trade that kills far more people than terrorism ever will.
The public tend to view the rulers and the law makers as the moral arbiters. If it's as easy to buy coke as it is to buy coke then rather a lot of people will reach the opinion that it's not actually viewed as 'that' bad. They'd be more than halfway right too.
Have we lost sight of the issue?
Mostly that it's none of your business?
because i like to make up my own mind and not let a government make it for me?Why should the end user or reader give a toss about the rights and wrongs of using coke when governments clearly don't think its that important?
spchantler - Memberlots of missing the point going on ^^.
at present, drugs are illegal, profits go into the hands of organised crime, now. saying that's because of the war on drugs is sidestepping the issue
No, it really isn't. It is the issue, blaming the individuals for the global problem is missing the point. Hate the game not the playa 😉
Nobody chooses to deal with criminals when buying drugs. Nobody wants to be funding gang lords, or supporting dodgy foreign regimes. But this is the choice that we are allowed, because governments have chosen to take the better options off the table.
Most of the controlled substances will become regulated when the pharmaceutical companies stop making money out of their current product ranges and tell the governments to introduce regulation. Probably with some sort of high duties imposed that will in effect be a profit share for governments and the pharma's through some weirdly overcomplicated corporate tax rebate scheme - or legal money laundering.
The various key markets will introduce first, i.e. South America, as that will give us, the fearful masses, complete reassurance that everything is going to be okay as they take out the various cartels and farms by bringing under state control, stopping the war on drugs in very short order. A relieved global populous (think middle England.. but like, global) then put up no opposition to regulation, except for a few murmurings of why didn't we do it before?
Capitalism is intrinsically linked, the world's resources are being consumed at an increasing rate, new products for mass consumption will be needed in order for capitalism to continue in its primary objective of 'growth'. Controlled substances are probably number 3 or 4 on the list, although I imagine there are a few different lists, depending upon little things like major international cafuffle's and fisty-cuff's.
I have had one particular twinge of sadness whilst under the influence of the South American marching powder whilst in LA with a small group of mates… but that, I seem to recall, had more to do with looking at an empty dinner plate that a mere 5 or 6 hours earlier had been a mini mountain of the purest, flakiest chocolate and we mourned it's demise as we hiked off into the Hollywood Hills to go watch the sun come up and talk at each other.
because i like to make up my own mind and not let a government make it for me?
Good for you. If you didn't already know a large majority of people make decisions on what makes them feel good.
just coke aint it, who's not doing it would be more of a shock
yet that is what happens, wish it wasn't so but it is 😉Nobody chooses to deal with criminals when buying drugs. Nobody wants to be funding gang lords, or supporting dodgy foreign regimes
the government are in on this big time, the quality/availability of gear goes up big time every time there is a big national celebration, keeps the riff raff in their pits and away from the streets,
what ended the London riots? a flood of drugs 😉
I think you'll find that it's not Nigella buying coke that causes the problems in the OP, it's the fact that the government has criminalised it that has caused all those things to happen.
[img] 
[/img]
Legalise it.
Tax it.
Everyone's a winner.
Well, nearly everyone.
It seems curious to blame legislation for the casualties of those actions on the legislators than on the makers and buyers
It depends has legislation made the problems or not
Most folk would buy fair trade/nice happy coke were it an option on the table but the policies mean only bastards provide it and the chain is amoral.
I would also argue this is what happens when you leave capitalism to risk takers and wealth creators rather than regulate and control
Do the least harm and that is done by legislation and control rather than what we currently have
Now her coke addiction has broken, I wonder if she will release her "Nigella hash cake recipe book" or her long awaited "Bolivian marching powder cook book"
I don't really care about people I don't know, am I a horrible person?
I don't really care about people I don't know, am I a horrible person?
You are the majority. Politicians listen to you because your vote matters. Your questionable morals are a sideshow.
Ultimately, if you are arguing that individuals should feel some responsibility for the suffering caused at far remove, we face numerous issues. After all, our taxes have supported despotic regimes across the world and funded some pretty suspect military action. Our need to access raw materials at any cost has also propped up some unsavoury regimes.
I thought i was reading an article from the Daily Express when i read the first post
My favorite comment is
a mere 5 or 6 hours earlier had been a mini mountain of the purest, flakiest chocolate and we mourned it's demise
Good work fella - when in Rome and all 🙂
The reasont the british goverment don't like drug dealers is that unlike mad dictators, they don't come round waving cash to buy Planes/Tanks/Bentleys They also buy their guns from the proper black market instead of from somebody from Eton's dodgy uncle.
Well that's the most racist post that I've ever read
I don't really care about people I don't know, am I a horrible person?
Well not really horrible, I guess, but perhaps rather unfeeling? The way a society treats those less fortunate - whether we know them or not - than us is a measure of how civilised we are, I think.
Sadly, oliverd1981 may well have a very good point!
Does anyone feel sorry for her?
I couldnt care less. Same when Vanessa Felt- both TV presenters (come on is she really a proper chef?). Its just extending her moment in the spotlight in wrong way.
The other one Im not overly keen on is Jamie but at least hes hardworking, restaurants etc. She just seems like a rich woman who sucks her fingers and smiles. Grim.
surprised her programme is on the box tonight
Cameron prob supported Nigella coz his wife (samantha) was treated for cocaine addiction in the late 90's at a certain well known London clinic. it's a shame he hasn't the balls to sort out the drug policy regarding the utterly draconian laws attached to what is considered "just a bit of coke" for so many of us.
its the context though right?
a bit of gear on a night out ok?
my neighbour smoking a joint at 8am in her car so her 10yo daughter doesn't know what she's upto
?
the lad i saw walking his dog before midday on sunday in the woods you have to drive to?
I must say, looking purely at the headlines, it does rather make you wonder whether thecase is proceeding as it should. All the headlines are about Nigella's partiality to the old marching poweder, but I thought the case was about her amusingly-surnamed PAs robbing her and Saaaaatchi blind?
Agreed. At the moment it would appear she'. In the dock for taking drugs. Wonder why the judge is letting this happen. Bet the legal bods are making a fortune.
All the headlines are about Nigella's partiality to the old marching powder
Of course they are. Tabloid readers don't care about the antics of menial staff, but a sleb on drugs? SHOCKAH! Etc.
Nothing to do with the way the case is going, more the way the case is being [s]sensationalised[/s] reported.
Cameron prob supported Nigella coz his wife (samantha) was treated for cocaine addiction in the late 90's at a certain well known London clinic.
[i]citation needed[/i]
I can only assume it's an attempt to discredit NL's evidence.Wonder why the judge is letting this happen.
"She allowed us to do it. Of course she doesn't remember, she was off her tits all the time."
Bet it's top quality crunch, though...
I know Dave is instilled with the born to rule sense of divine entitlement so beloved of our privately educated betters, but even by their usual standards, its difficult to imagine achieving such truly breathtaking arrogance without the aid of large quantities of nose candy
frankly an evening with nigella, coke, spliffs and great food sounds great.
I'm just amazed this came to court:
The lasses were handed credit cards to use, they used them, then overused them, the monthly statements went to the right people with oversight of the accounts, then they were accused of fraud.
Seems strange